Such thing as too few calories?
Replies
-
chandanista wrote: »Too few calories makes it difficult to reach nutrient goals, which can result in hair loss, brittle nails, even organ damage eventually. Much easier to get appropriate macros when you eat a little more than 1200 calories.
Is that information for someone who is normal to slightly overweight? Does it pertain to people who are obese?
0 -
The only extremely low calorie diet I know is the Bernstein diet. iirc you get around 800 calories a day. Though I don't know if it is considered a "starvation" diet medically, I would think it is. On that diet for instance your blood and urine is monitored consistently and you have to take a multitude of vitamins and B-Vitamin shots (Don't remember which ones, its been over 10 years). The foods you ate were healthy, but you still needed those oral and injected vitamins because, as others have stated, you can't get the appropriate vitamins if you drop very far below 1200. The diet works well, but at what cost?0
-
The only extremely low calorie diet I know is the Bernstein diet. iirc you get around 800 calories a day. Though I don't know if it is considered a "starvation" diet medically, I would think it is. On that diet for instance your blood and urine is monitored consistently and you have to take a multitude of vitamins and B-Vitamin shots (Don't remember which ones, its been over 10 years). The foods you ate were healthy, but you still needed those oral and injected vitamins because, as others have stated, you can't get the appropriate vitamins if you drop very far below 1200. The diet works well, but at what cost?
That doesn't seem worth it.. Might as well eat s healthy diet of 1200+ calories to get the appropriate nutrients0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
Yes, because the body is limited on how much it can take from fat stores in a given time period. If it runs short on the "bank withdrawals" for the day it will start restricting expenditures to unnecessary and less necessary functions.amandatcv23 wrote: »chandanista wrote: »Too few calories makes it difficult to reach nutrient goals, which can result in hair loss, brittle nails, even organ damage eventually. Much easier to get appropriate macros when you eat a little more than 1200 calories.
Is that information for someone who is normal to slightly overweight? Does it pertain to people who are obese?
0 -
It definitely isn't worth it, health wise (thats not even talking about the extra cost of something like that).
I'd definitely stay above 1200. (I'm not sure what your weight is, but I have started this time at around 1600 calories and I am obese as well) After the last time I wanted to give myself more room to cut back the calories as I loose weight so that I would never have to go below 1200 as I cut back. I know It's really hard to take it slowly, especially when you want to loose it. It can sometimes be really tempting to try and just cut back to 1200 and continue cutting back from there so you can see faster progress. Especially when you have so much that you want to loose.0 -
chandanista wrote: »
Yes, because the body is limited on how much it can take from fat stores in a given time period. If it runs short on the "bank withdrawals" for the day it will start restricting expenditures to unnecessary and less necessary functions.amandatcv23 wrote: »chandanista wrote: »Too few calories makes it difficult to reach nutrient goals, which can result in hair loss, brittle nails, even organ damage eventually. Much easier to get appropriate macros when you eat a little more than 1200 calories.
Is that information for someone who is normal to slightly overweight? Does it pertain to people who are obese?
Thank you
0 -
I am jumping in here and defending the poster who mentioned "starvation mode." It does exist and is a euphemism for adaptive thermogenisis. It does not happen quite the way the poster described, but the point is the same. Basically, it is a physiological response to a sustained, low calorie intake. The brain is protecting the body from starvation by slowing the body's metabolism. It is the same reason that you should lower your calorie intake as you lose weight or make an effort to burn more calories through some form of exercise.
Ref (laymen): authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode
Ref (technical): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
However, there is a point where the body is not receiving enough fuel to function or, more importantly the right mix of nutrients. Scientist and nutritionist disagree on what the minimum calorie intake should be as it varies with each individual, but the current rule of thumb is around 1,200 calories per day for an adult female. There are a number of websites that will assist you in calculating your minimum calories needed per day. Look up "Basil Metabolic Rate" (BMR) and "Total daily energy expenditure" (TDEE). These can assist you in determining a daily calorie intake that is right for you.
If you are not losing weight at your current calorie intake, I suggest 2 things:
1. Double check your logging. I have found that many items on MFP have multiple listings and the listings can vary by 500 calories or more. I have a hierarchy that I use when there are multiple entries or calories given. I trust the food labels first, Published restaurant nutrition information second, third are items in MFP with a check and, as a last resort, I look at the various entries for an item, discard the high and low and take the one with the highest calorie count (conservative), or, if several are in a range, I use the average.
2. Try adding more exercise. I think I saw where you do this, so I am not telling you anything you do not already do.
You should also keep in mind that calorie measurements (both calories in and calories out) are very imprecise measurements. For example, the guidelines from the FDA for caloric measuring of food is + or - 20%. Exercise equipment that measures calories expended are notorious for over estimating energy expended. I would be conservative on estimating calories expended for exercise as well.
Good luck on your journey!0 -
amandatcv23 wrote: »Heartlight441 wrote: »Pretty sure it's not recommended to eat under 1200 calories though. You don't want your body to enter starvation mode because then it will hold on even more to fat out of survival mode. That, and also then you might be prone to binge eating. My opinion is to remain at 1200 but add in exercise...enough to make you sweat a bit each day. Also to add in weight training because with added muscle your body burns more calories even at rest plus looks good. And no worries, as a woman you won't turn into the Hulk. Also recommended it to let yourself have an occassional treat so you don't feel deprivation. Occassional.
Good luck!!
Starvation mode doesn't exist. 1200 calories is the minimum to ensure a woman receives adequate nutrition. You also cannot build muscle on 1200 calories, but strength training is important to preserve muscle, especially at a low calorie amount.
Can't build muscle on 1200 calories does that mean if I'm eating 1200 calories and weight training I won't lose weight?
If you're on 1200 calories, the chances of building any appreciable amount of muscle are low, though not impossible. There are tons of factors, such as how much muscle the person already has / how advanced in training they are, the structure and volume of their program, adequate rest and recovery, how overweight the individual already is, etc.
Generally on MFP people throw out that you won't gain on 1200 calories because you don't want false hope - many people think they're building huge amounts of muscle and that's preventing their weight loss, when in fact, the ease with which a new person gains strength has a lot to do with increase their nerve signalling instead of actually growing muscles in proportion to the strength gains. When losing weight, strength training is best looked as about retaining existing muscles, and if anything is gained, considered a nice a bonus, not an expectation.0 -
Well you don't seem to be weighing your food, so you're probably eating more than you think. I'd just see if you're losing too fast, then adjust. Otherwise, no worries and keep going.0
-
My approach is to eat as much as I can while still losing weight. As you get smaller, you need less energy/food so calorie intake should go down (or exercise goes up). So, if you can lose at 1700 (or what ever you mentioned), I would do that. Then when weight loss stops, lower to 1600, then 1500 etc...
You just have to make sure to accurately weigh and log your food, because if you think you're eating 1200 now but you're really eating 1700 now and then you up your calories, you're now in a surplus and gain weight. Most people have no idea how much they're eating until they start weighing their food.
Good luck!!0 -
amandatcv23 wrote: »So here's my question... As being so overweight, if I did a low calorie diet plan until I got to a reasonable weight and then upped my calories, would that be a good option? I have done the 1700-2000 calories while working out and I have lost weight, but I always gain the weight back..
If you lost before on 1700-2000 and then gained the weight back it is because when you stopped counting calories you started eating at a surplus again. This is the reason that I do not do low carb or cut out all sugar or anything restrictive like that that I am not going to be able to sustain once I lose the weight. Because if you change your eating habits while you are dieting, but then change them back when you finish the diet you will gain the weight back. For this to work it has to be a lifestyle change and not just a diet. You have to make lifestyle changes that you can sustain for the rest of your life. I could not give up carbs or cheese or any sugar for the rest of my life, so I still eat them now. I just have to learn how to eat them in moderation and fit them into my daily goal. I lost weight about 20 years ago doing low fat. It did work for me, but when I became pregnant I went back to my regular diet and then I just kept on putting on the weight over the years. This time I am eating all the foods I like (just not at the same portion sizes) and losing weight. Mfp has me at 1200 calories a day to lose 1 pound a week, but I think that is a little low so I changed my goal to 1300. Plus I eat back about 80% of my exercise calories so I usually eat anywhere from 1400-1600 calories a day depending on my activity level. I would recommend eating at 1700 and if you are exercising then eat back at least half of those added calories (just adjust as you go if you are losing more or less than expected).1 -
amandatcv23 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »If I can eat 1700 and lose at a realistically desired rate then you'll be damn sure that's what I'm going to eat! It's not a race and whilst you feel fine now, being so aggressive will likely have consequences later on down the line. That's aside from the fact you have nowhere to go from 1200 because it's the lowest amount need to meet bare minimum nutritional needs for most women.
So if I lose say 50 pounds doing 1200 calories and then I go to say 1400-1600 would I gain weight back if I'm still eating healthy and working out?
No. Because at 1400-1600 you are likely still in deficit. You could lose 50 lbs eating 1400-1600 right NOW it would just happen at a slower rate. In order to gain weight, you need to be eating more calories than your body burns in a day.0 -
That's what I thought. Thanks0
-
For what it's worth, I lost 90lbs in a year eating around 1400 calories a day.1
-
If you are getting enough vitamins, minerals, protein, etc, and you are not feeling hungry, there's no real reason why 1200 shouldn't work. The reason it's not recommended to go below that is because it's hard to get all the nutrition you need below 1200. Check with the doc.
If you're *netting* 1200, ie eating more than 1200 but burning off the rest through exercise you're probably fine but again make sure you get all your nutritional requirements and plenty of protein to minimise muscle loss.
Make sure you weigh all your food - if you're really not feeling hungry it might be that you're consuming more than you think.0 -
Thanks good point. I do weigh my food and an very precise in that aspect. I just get full so fast now and I have very little appitite. I did the three day military diet and that may be why. I don't mind, I actually like it. I don't feel weak or anything. I'm eating three small meals a day with two snacks.0
-
emalethmoon wrote: »For what it's worth, I lost 90lbs in a year eating around 1400 calories a day.
That's awesome good job! That sounds very reasonable time. How many calories were you eating before it? Dos you exercise during that time?
0 -
amandatcv23 wrote: »Thanks good point. I do weigh my food and an very precise in that aspect. I just get full so fast now and I have very little appitite. I did the three day military diet and that may be why. I don't mind, I actually like it. I don't feel weak or anything. I'm eating three small meals a day with two snacks.
The military diet is not endorsed by the military and its just another very low calorie diet that is not sustainable in the long run.that diet for three days should not make a difference in anything to be honest. its just a bunch of bullcrap is what that diet is.
0 -
11mikeussery wrote: »I am jumping in here and defending the poster who mentioned "starvation mode." It does exist and is a euphemism for adaptive thermogenisis. It does not happen quite the way the poster described, but the point is the same. Basically, it is a physiological response to a sustained, low calorie intake. The brain is protecting the body from starvation by slowing the body's metabolism. It is the same reason that you should lower your calorie intake as you lose weight or make an effort to burn more calories through some form of exercise.
Ref (laymen): authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode
Ref (technical): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
Four pages into the second article, and it seemed to be more about how long term weight loss is difficult because the body works against you. It would be a great link to post if you were trying to convince someone to just not bother, IMO.
You need to reduce calories as you get smaller because a smaller body uses fewer calories to get through the day. I agree with the advice in the first article to keep protein up and include resistance training in order to maintain lean muscle mass. I like how one of the experiments cited was of three women on an 800 calorie diet. My response would be stop right there, don't do that.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »amandatcv23 wrote: »Thanks good point. I do weigh my food and an very precise in that aspect. I just get full so fast now and I have very little appitite. I did the three day military diet and that may be why. I don't mind, I actually like it. I don't feel weak or anything. I'm eating three small meals a day with two snacks.
The military diet is not endorsed by the military and its just another very low calorie diet that is not sustainable in the long run.that diet for three days should not make a difference in anything to be honest. its just a bunch of bullcrap is what that diet is.
Totally not for the long run but it's q good kickstart and helped A LOT with bloating0 -
If you have the chance to lose on 1700 I'd take it if I was you. I'm so short and if I'm overweight at all, it's only slightly and I maintain on 1600 and lose 0.5lb/week on 1350 (without exercise). I'd love to be able to eat 1700.0
-
DrusiliaDD wrote: »If you have the chance to lose on 1700 I'd take it if I was you. I'm so short and if I'm overweight at all, it's only slightly and I maintain on 1600 and lose 0.5lb/week on 1350 (without exercise). I'd love to be able to eat 1700.
If I don't exercise I lose weight on 1350 but if I workout I have to do 2000 according to mfp
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Eat the 1700 + calories, be content losing at slower rate but it will be sustainable loss
...oh and you'll not end up losing hair or have brittle nails from denying your body the fuel it needs longterm.
Why deprive yourself is my question? ?
I lost all my weight eating 1800 gross cals at 1/2lb a week...and I kept the weight off (maintaining since 2013)
0 -
amandatcv23 wrote: »So here's my question... As being so overweight, if I did a low calorie diet plan until I got to a reasonable weight and then upped my calories, would that be a good option? I have done the 1700-2000 calories while working out and I have lost weight, but I always gain the weight back..
You lost weight eating at 1700+ cals ..
Then why would you want to eat less?? You obviously didn't stick to the plan when you got to maintenance so you gained ....what changed? We can't go back to our old ways of eating
we have to think about how much we eat and how much we move for the rest of our lives. 0 -
Eating 1700 calories a day seems like it'd be about a zillion times easier and more fun than eating 1200. I'd definitely go with the 1700. Live a little!0
-
There are some misconceptions on here that I'd really love to clear up
I agree with an above poster that starvation mode is a real physiological response to a sustained, low calorie intake. The only problem is on mfp wayyy too many people believe they are entering 'starvation mode' by eating sub 1,200 calories. Most of these studies that demonstrate the effects of starvation mode are done on people who are actually starving, not dieting. Unless you are eating like <500 calories a day for a prolonged period of time, you're probably not going to enter starvation mode anytime soon. All of those posters who claim to be eating 1,200 calories and not losing weight are probably just inaccurately logging their food and exercise. Yes studies have shown that the metabolism on a calorie deficit does slow down, but never enough to offset said calorie deficit. Hate to burst everyone's 'metabolic damage' theories, but the laws of thermodynamics pretty much work the same for everyone and every thing.
Secondly you can still build muscle (albeit it will be minimal) when on a deficit if you're either 1) overweight 2) untrained or a 3) teenage boys. Incorporating strength training while dieting is a good way to preserve muscle mass, plus it makes you feel like a badass.0 -
The only extremely low calorie diet I know is the Bernstein diet. iirc you get around 800 calories a day. Though I don't know if it is considered a "starvation" diet medically, I would think it is. On that diet for instance your blood and urine is monitored consistently and you have to take a multitude of vitamins and B-Vitamin shots (Don't remember which ones, its been over 10 years). The foods you ate were healthy, but you still needed those oral and injected vitamins because, as others have stated, you can't get the appropriate vitamins if you drop very far below 1200. The diet works well, but at what cost?
It is considered a Very Low Calorie Diet (VLCD). MFP considers them so dangerous that they do not allow usually allow them to be promoted here.
They don't work. Do not do.
The rule is to not promote VLCD that isn't supervised by a doctor. They do work, but should be done under medical supervision.I am jumping in here and defending the poster who mentioned "starvation mode." It does exist and is a euphemism for adaptive thermogenisis. It does not happen quite the way the poster described, but the point is the same. Basically, it is a physiological response to a sustained, low calorie intake. The brain is protecting the body from starvation by slowing the body's metabolism. It is the same reason that you should lower your calorie intake as you lose weight or make an effort to burn more calories through some form of exercise.
Ref (laymen): authoritynutrition.com/starvation-mode
Ref (technical): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3673773/
However, there is a point where the body is not receiving enough fuel to function or, more importantly the right mix of nutrients. Scientist and nutritionist disagree on what the minimum calorie intake should be as it varies with each individual, but the current rule of thumb is around 1,200 calories per day for an adult female. There are a number of websites that will assist you in calculating your minimum calories needed per day. Look up "Basil Metabolic Rate" (BMR) and "Total daily energy expenditure" (TDEE). These can assist you in determining a daily calorie intake that is right for you.
If you are not losing weight at your current calorie intake, I suggest 2 things:
1. Double check your logging. I have found that many items on MFP have multiple listings and the listings can vary by 500 calories or more. I have a hierarchy that I use when there are multiple entries or calories given. I trust the food labels first, Published restaurant nutrition information second, third are items in MFP with a check and, as a last resort, I look at the various entries for an item, discard the high and low and take the one with the highest calorie count (conservative), or, if several are in a range, I use the average.
2. Try adding more exercise. I think I saw where you do this, so I am not telling you anything you do not already do.
You should also keep in mind that calorie measurements (both calories in and calories out) are very imprecise measurements. For example, the guidelines from the FDA for caloric measuring of food is + or - 20%. Exercise equipment that measures calories expended are notorious for over estimating energy expended. I would be conservative on estimating calories expended for exercise as well.
Good luck on your journey!
And, again, no. Yes, adaptive thermogenesis is a real thing. The body down regulates roughly 10% in deficit, but then hormone levels and things bounce back after about 2 weeks in maintenance...see 2 week diet break.
"Starvation mode", or in other words the crazy idea that eating less food will cause you to not lose weight is simply a lie. No truth whatsoever.
Stated this before just this week, from personal experience:
VLCD 800 -1000 calories a day - lost 30 pounds in the first 30 days
Current diet 1200 -1400 calories a day - lost about 12 pounds in the first 30 days
So if "starvation mode" were real shouldn't I have not lost on the lower calories, or lost more slowly?
And, OP, FWIW, you can start with a lower calorie range/deeper deficit while obese and later move to a higher calorie range/smaller deficit. I started more near 1200, now mostly closer to 1400 and have lost steadily.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions